Pundit Says Apple Should Cancel the iPhone

in

Disclaimer: As a regular TWIT listener, I'm a Dvorak fan. However, I think that, like a lot of people, this time he has -gone- -too- -far-!

Johncdvorak


As long as I've been reading about technology and Apple, John Dvorak has served as my reference point for the views of reactionary technocrats everywhere. He doesn't get Apple, he's never gotten Apple, and he tries really hard to convince other people that there's nothing about Apple to get. All he cares about are specifications and explicit features -- the idea that devices with better interfaces are better than cheaper ones has never occured to him.


But even by his own standards, his latest column is well past the deep end. You know that moment in Warner Bros. cartoons where Wile E. Coyote chases after a cloud of dust that he thinks leads to the Road Runner, but he eventually instead runs clear off of a cliff, but it's OK for a little while, he just floats, but then he makes the mistake of looking down and crashes to the cliff floor? Dvorak's only still in mid-air because he hasn't looked down.


Here's his advice to Apple regarding the iPhone: Pull the plug. BEFORE IT EVEN LAUNCHES. I know, I didn't believe it, either. Keep reading for the top 5 reasons Dvorak has such a bizarre perspective.


Technorati Tags: , , ,


There are plenty of reasons why the iPod stood out from its competitors: The overall form is attractive. The interface is simple and powerful. The overall ecosystem with iTunes is simpler than competing solutions. I have to say that a lack of advertising never struck me as a critical missing element that was holding Mp3 players back from mainstream success. But that's how Dvorak reads it:


First the MP3 player business was segmented and unfocused with numerous players making a lot of cheap junk and not doing much to market any of it.



Apple does what? Advertise. Gosh, what a concept.


Oh, so that's it! The secret to winning in emerging markets is by spending ad dollars! It's so obvious! That's why the Zune has been able to come in and...oh, never mind. How many years had the iPod been on the market before Apple started doing serious TV advertising for the product? I don't remember TV ads before 2003, by which point the early generations already had a strong foothold.


And besides, you couldn't possibly give credit for the success of the iTunes Music Store to advertising, could you?


Then there was the online music distribution business, again unfocused and out-of-control with little marketing and a lot of incompatible technologies. So Apple comes in with a reasonable solution, links it to the heavily promoted iPod and bingo. A winner.



It advertises on TV, on billboards and on the Internet. Within no time the company takes over the business that would probably still be languishing without Apple.



Thus Apple does what it does best. It produces a jazzy product and promotes it like any good business should do. And in the process manages to get a high margin.


OK, maybe John can. There are so many delusional elements to this paragraph. First, iTMS music is incompatible with other Mp3 players. Clearly, "incompatibility" was not the missing element. While the overall success of iTMS was up in the air, Napster advertised like crazy and made no headway. And the iPod was more than "heavily promoted." It was the market leader. And Apple got there by selling iPods, not giving them away.


So how does all of this mean that the iPhone is doomed? Well, John is under the impression that the mobile phone market is too competitive for Apple. From the sound of it, there might even be players in the business who have tried this "advertising" thing. Even on billboards and the Internet!


Now compare that effort and overlay the mobile handset business. This is not an emerging business. In fact it's gone so far that it's in the process of consolidation with probably two players dominating everything, Nokia Corp. and Motorola Inc.



During this phase of a market margins are incredibly thin so that the small fry cannot compete without losing a lot of money.



As for advertising and expensive marketing this is nothing like Apple has ever stepped into. It's a buzz saw waiting to chop up newbies.


Look out, Apple, it's the buzz saw! The buzz saw of phones that get bundled for free with a one-year service agreement and a small order of fries! This is all patently ridiculous. Apple is not going to compete with "phones." The iPhone is going to sell fewer copies than the cheapest phones on the market. Big deal. The way to make money in a commodity market is to put out a premium, differentiated product and target it to an emerging sector of that market. And that's what Apple has done with the iPhone. They want to own the multimedia phone market, which is unclaimed so far. When the best you're up against is Chocolate LG, it's pretty easy to stand out from the pack. Not to mention, both Motorola and Nokia are up against some real challenges right now.


What Apple risks here is its reputation as a hot company that can do no wrong. If it's smart it will call the iPhone a "reference design" and pass it to some suckers to build with someone else's marketing budget. Then it can wash its hands of any marketplace failures.


There's the way to succeed! Assume failure and let someone else take the blame! Sometimes, business shouldn't just be about mitigating risk, you know. Sometimes, you have to place big bets. It's idiotic to assume Apple took smaller risks when introducing any of its iconic products or that it got here by taking the easy way out. Sometimes, you do things the scary way. And if you do it well enough, you can win. That's what Dvorak doesn't get about Apple. And that's why his writing is so entertaining -- it's technology forecasting by a weatherman who only believes in hurricanes.


Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone - MarketWatch

Via Digg.

(Via Cult of Mac.)

Warning to new Tuzworld readers: Its Tornado Season

in

And being the weather geek/nut that I am, I love storms and extreme weather. If you are one of those people who have been reading Tuzworld for years, you already know this. If you've been reading Tuzworld since last July, you've seen my Hurricane obsession during Hurricane season. Well, its the end of March now and Tornado season kicked off sometime this month. From now until July you'll see a lot of weather related coverage here, in addition to my regular political and technology stuff. Sit back, relax, and enjoy the pretty pictures.

To kick this off, check out the excellent pictures that Mike Hollingshead took yesterday of a Tornado that touched down in Grant, NE.

If you live in the midwest and take any pictures this year, send them to me!!!! joel at tuzworld .com :)

Hero classes coming?

in

Mojo:

I found this over on Tobold's site, and it purports to be leaked information from a play-tester explaining exactly how Hero classes will work. The explanation is similar enough to how classes work now--and it's kind of unimaginative and dull--for me to believe that this is how they will be, or at least very close to how they will be.

Here's a snippet:

Firstly each of the nine base classes can branch out to exactly three hero classes. For example, Druids can branch out to Druid of the Talon (nuking), Druid of the Claw (feral), and Keeper of the Grove (healing), while Paladins can be Champion of the Light (healing), Mountain King (defense, and yes they twisted lore here), and Knight of the Silver Hand (offense). More details on specific hero classes later. As you can see, each of the three hero classes plays to the strengths of that classes' three talent trees. However the main purpose of Hero Classes is to allow players to tangibly improve their characters at max-level through means other than gear. Since Hero Classes will be released after The Burning Crusade, they will be obtained at level 70. Surprisingly they'll not only be available to every player, without a quest, but they'll either be trainable for free at the corresponding class trainer, or require a simple and straightforward quest. Blizzard's reasoning is that Hero Classes should be a natural progression and reward for all players who have achieved max-level, rather than a grind for only the "hardcore".

There's two catches though: 1) specializing in a Hero Class is like specializing in a profession - you're stuck with it forever, and 2) you won?t immediately have access to all hero skills. Think of it as starting a new class - you start off with a couple of base abilities, you get a few more from class quests, and the rest come from your class trainer. The same applies to hero classes; picking a Hero Class will start you off with two new hero skills, and the rest will come from hero class training (called "hero talents") and hero quests. Here's the interesting part: hero talents uses Hero Points, rather than currency or regular talent points. Blizzard hasn't finalized how Hero Points will be earned, but they will most likely be obtained through a combination of experience/honor, and unique items that give you one or more hero points when used. Most likely those items will be given as both quest rewards, and drops off legendary mobs like Illidan and outdoor raid bosses (emphasizing the "heroism").

It sounds like it will lock you into one role pretty hard and also perpetuate the boring (to me at leats) Raid-or-Die paradigm. Yay? Click through to see the big list of what spec becomes which Hero class.

(Via Metroblogging Azeroth.)

Looking Real Good: fashion shots of normal people

in

Cory Doctorow:

Pete sez, "Last week my friends and I quietly launched our new project; the basic premise is that interesting people upload photos of themselves looking their best. Every day there's a new person to read about on the homepage/RSS for 24 hours. There's no profit motive, and no opportunity to comment or vote or any other cruft; it's just an opportunity to wake up and see a fresh new face."

Link

(Thanks, Pete)

(Via Boing Boing.)

Google’s driving direx from New York to Dublin, Ireland

in

Cory Doctorow:

Hilarious: ask Google Maps for driving directions from New York to Dublin, Ireland and they'll give them to you, including this step, "Swim across the Atlantic Ocean 3,462 mi." Weirdly, they instruct you to swim to France, drive the Chunnel to England, then take a ferry back to Ireland. Surely there's a more efficient totally impossible route?

Link

(via Kottke)

Update:
Dave sez, "Of course, you'd have to swim about 4.9mph for 29 continuous days to achieve this time. Considering that the worlds fastest swimming records (in a 50-meter race) are just over 5mph... your mileage may vary!"

(Via Boing Boing.)